March 11, 2012

Chicago's next great public space? Push to turn dormant elevated line into vibrant path and park shows promise; Emanuel announcing final funds for project's first phase

MONDAY UPDATE: Mayor Rahm Emanuel is expected Monday to announce the final $9 million in funding for the Bloomingdale Trail and Park's first phase. The Exelon Foundation is said to be giving $5 million, according to published reports, while Boeing and CNA are each donating $1 million. The Chicago Park District is to provide another $2 million, the reports say, meaning that local taxpayer funds are also supporting the project. That conradicts what city officials and Beth White, director of the Chicago area office of the Trust for Public Land, stated at at a public meeting last week. They said that all of the remaining $9 million would be raised privately.

With the grandiose plan for the 2,000-foot Chicago Spire deader than the Illini's chances of making the NCAA basketball tournament, the most ambitious architectural endeavors in Chicago today are horizontal, not vertical.

One seeks to remake the carnivalesque public spaces of 3,000-foot-long Navy Pier. Expect a winning team, or teams, to be named for that assignment within the week — and lots of media hoopla because the pier is Illinois' biggest tourist attraction.

Another big horizontal project is getting far less attention, probably because it's out in the neighborhoods, far from the glamorous lakefront. And that's too bad because it could be Chicago's next great public space.

This plan would transform a dormant, 2.7-mile stretch of an elevated railroad line on the Northwest Side into a lively multiuse path and park that would run from Ashland Avenue (1600 west) to Ridgeway Avenue (3732 west).

This linear public space would lift you above the city, providing a lookout point from which to gaze at a rich assortment of urban vignettes — smokestacks and skyscrapers, taquerias and uber-chic boutiques, grand boulevards (at left, an overlook of Humboldt Boulevard) and humble, two-flat-lined streets. You could bike there, hang out there or go art-watching there. The retaining walls along the old elevated line are a linear gallery, adorned with colorful murals as well as their share of graffiti.

The project, called the Bloomingdale Trail and Park, is no urban planner's fantasy, despite years of delays that have made it seem that way.

City officials say they have secured more than $37 million in federal anti-congestion and air-quality funding for the project's $46 million first phase — the remaining $9 million is to be raised privately. Mayor Rahm Emanuel is an avid backer. Construction could start next year, with portions of the project opening in 2014.

The trail took a significant step forward Thursday night when three design firms unveiled a carefully conceived, long-range plan meant to guide its development. The plan is a distinctly post-industrial exercise, seeking to breathe new life into a nearly century-old rail spur (above) that was raised above city streets to prevent deadly at-grade collisions between trains and people.

"The whole structure was built to keep people out," said Chicago architect Carol Ross Barney, who leads one of the three design firms. "Our work has been to get people in and up there."

That work has been done well for the most part, addressing, if not fully resolving, a wide range of conflicting needs — between speeding cyclists and slow-moving pedestrians, neighboring homeowners who cherish privacy and advocates of a vibrant public space that serves as a focus of community.

Barney's firm and the other lead designers, the global engineering firm Arup and the landscape architects at Cambridge, Mass.-based Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, propose eight access points to the trail, which would be spaced at reasonable intervals of roughly half a mile.

Five of the eight entries would be small, ground-level parks from which berms would form gentle upward slopes (above, at top of post, and left). Two would be ramps leading up from street level. The last would be an L-shaped berm at the trail's western end.

The trail itself (below) has been smartly designed, avoiding the monotony of straight lines and an institutional plant palette. The multiuse path, a total of 14 feet wide and running the entire 2.7 miles, would have gentle curves and would dip occasionally. Such changes in level and direction would serve many aims, providing ever-changing views, reducing the distance from street to trail and slowing down cyclists.

Trees and shrubs also would do double (and triple) duty, providing shade, attracting birds and separating quiet pedestrian zones from the more active bike path.

In a further attempt to avoid the crashes between pedestrians and cyclists that plague Chicago's lakefront trail, the designers call for 1.5 miles of pedestrian pathways that would run parallel to the multiuse trail. For safety's sake, however, more pedestrian-only paths may be needed, as some suggested during Thursday night's Q and A.

It's all a big balancing act, one that's enormously difficult to achieve on a 30-foot-wide trail that's also supposed to have room for benches, art and lighting. Fortunately, there is time for tweaking. Final plans still have to be drawn.

However the finished product turns out, the process has been praiseworthy, with several public hearings giving people a chance to have their say and influence the end result. The bottom-up approach has created a sense of familiarity and give-and-take that's a welcome change from former Mayor Richard M. Daley's distant, top-down style.

When one homeowner expressed concern Thursday that "people could reach out and touch the walls and windows of my home," Barney addressed him by his first name, having encountered him at previous meetings, and said the trail could be curved away from his home. Afterward, she promised to dine with him at the home once the trail opens.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Marvelous idea. It has certainly worked in NYC, where the High Line is not only in constant use by residents, but has become a destination for visitors to the city.

Chicago might want to take a tip from the High Line, though, where park rules prohibit "[b]icycles . . . [u]se of skateboards, skates, or recreational scooters" and dogs. It's a marvelous and very much used space where pedestrians don't need to worry about being run over, crashed into or bitten.

(The High Line is also fully wheelchair-accessible. Will that be true of this park?)

This project seems like an instant crowd pleaser that will become a destination quality amenity. My only concern is this – has anyone analyzed what the potential impacts will be to pedestrian traffic on the adjacent streets (especially the commercial ones)? I recall reading years ago that one of the unintended consequences of San Antonio's great riverwalk – another instant crowd pleaser – was that it drew traffic and business away from established commercial streets nearby. Moving pedestrian traffic to a single, concentrated path like the trail could also conceivably reduce security on adjacent streets by lowering the number of people and corresponding "eyeballs on the street."

I expect overall pedestrian traffic to increase overall during the first few years of the trail as it draws visitors for its novelty and distinctive experience. If the increased traffic tapers into more regular but reduced pattern (and pulls traffic from nearby streets), that's when the unintended consequences of the trail will become apparent. Not to rain on anyone's parade, just something to think about and potentially mitigate via thoughtful planning.

This is not only a great use of land but offers a unique perspective of the city pedestrians rarely get to see. I like the idea of prohibiting bikes since the trail is less than 3 miles and really doesn't serve as a "Point A to Point B" means of travel and more as a walk/run back and fort trail. Unless there is a burning desire to bike from a highway underpass to gang neighborhoods quickly.

The Bloomingdale trail is too short, too expensive per mile, and is not very practical because it extends between destinations for which there is not a strong need to travel between.

A vastly better use of such monies would be to build commuter bicycle trails right next to existing Metra lines from downtown to the outskirts of the city, and into the burbs if the burbs want to pay their part.

There is plenty of space for such a trail next to Metra's Rock Island and BNSF routes, and perhaps other routes.

Re: the issue of bikes and peds--for whatever it's worth, much of the early momentum to make this project came from cyclists. Although it is only 3 miles, it will provide a nice alternative to riding on Armitage, esp. for children. The design team seems to have worked hard to accommodate the needs of pedestrians and cyclists.

@Ziggy: I agree they should look at it, but in San Antonio, they put a whole bunch of businesses on the Riverwalk too. A lot of the traffic it drew away from the other businesses was people actually substituting away, which seems unlikely with this plan.

@Lucas Gaffney: Why you gotta hate on a good thing? I bet you're the guy who complains about any science on the grounds that they should be trying to cure cancer instead.

As one of the people who has helped serve at Story Chicago and other creative events, I'm always interested in hearing about new and existing creative spaces in Chicago. Are there any plans to write an article highlighting other similar spaces?

I still think this whole project is one big green hole of waste--both by using private funds better suited for arts and community organizations in desperate need of funds but also by using taxpayer dollars for what will surely become a never ending, never fulfilled City project once construction companies start submitting bills. More so, has anyone done an ROI with extended life cycle costs? I mean, you can spend tens of millions just for the basics. Then the City will have to continue to fund continual maintenance on the paths, viaducts and hugely expensive ADA requirements (multiple elevator repairs, anyone?).

How much does an afterschool theater or visual arts program cost for one school? How much help would grants of $100,000 given to 50 arts groups per year accomplish? Now imagine you base those estimates against the $50-75 million cost of this idealized "High Line. 10+ years of funding?

Folks, Mayor Emmanuel learned well from Daley. Come up with pet projects that will appease two to three demographic groups and at least one major labor union and general contractor, and you'll get re-relected.

Not sure why they are stopping short of Elston Ave. (which has a bike lane), even though the existing viaduct continues over it. This seems like a no-brainer and will be leave someone in the embarrassing position of having to explain why. If they terminate it at Ashland, a lot of bike riders will be left to negotiate the traffic on Ashland which is not bike friendly.

Robert Salm:
You make some very good points. I would argue, though, that signature projects like the Bloomingdale Trail have value beyond the immediate benefits they provide.

That said, I think a critical issue is leveraging a significant public investment to help "make a market" and attract the attention and interest of private sector investors. In this regard, committing major bucks to a neighborhood that is already a very attractive location for investors is not an especially effective use of public resources. Jane Jacobs suggested decades ago that concentrating too many anchoring amenities and institutions in a single geographic location was a waste of precious resources. A more effective approach was to spread them around in a number of different neighborhoods.

I understand and appreciate the immense efforts that a considerable numbers of well meaning people have made to the Bloomingdale Trail concept thus far. However, a few years ago, I attended a public meeting for a similar rails to trails project in the Englewood neighborhood. I can't help but wonder if the same resources applied to Englewood might not over time achieve a higher return on investment. It would be a much more challenging project, but it's also one of those investments that could significantly help to transform the image and identity of a place that's suffered for decades - and provide a major connection to southside lakefront parks.

If I could wave my magic wand, I would do both projects tomorrow. But if I had to choose only one based on attaining the highest potential long term return on investment of precious public resources, I'd go with Englewood.